What do you think?

In the now defunct Mariani Vs Bush lawsuit Philip Berg
alleges that Bush et al. permitted 911 to occur so
they could profit from the 911 wars, but Berg never
questions the conspiracy theory that justifies those
wars. Berg alleges and implies that Bush is utterly
corrupt and enabled the murders of thousands of

Links removed at request of copyright owner.

Dont repost!

**This was posted on a Craig’s list. Interesting, insightful and makes a lot of sense. See what you think -->
My Eureka Moment on 911!
Date: 2007-06-14, 10:29PM PDT
Today after thinking about 911, I came to realize in a Eureka type moment there was neither a plane nor a missile (one of the conspiracy theories) that hit the WTC buildings. I know for a fact passenger jets never hit either building. All footage of both hits is totally contrived and unrealistic as to make one laugh. Watch them, again, if you wish to see what I am talking about.

Jonesreport.com Links To No-plane Article, LCers throw fit!
http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=84

Rense September Clues link gone:
http://www.rense.com/general76/sep.htm

Hardfire SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH / FETZER / ROBERTS / WIECK / 1ST PROGRAM Gary Popkin - 28 min - Apr 17, 2007 - small full starsmall full starsmall full starsmall full starsmall half star (25 ratings)

James H. Fetzer, of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, debates Mark Roberts, prominent 9/11 researcher, in this first of three programs. Ronald Wieck, a well informed ...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5692853335910175330

Hardfire SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH / FETZER / ROBERTS / WIECK / 2ND PROGRAM Gary Popkin - 29 min - Apr 17, 2007

Another year, another contrived 'controversy'.

It seems inevitable that the GKs would come back to this tactic sooner or later. Recently many of these shills have been using their their various platforms to smear a relatively small group of 9/11 researchers.

Picked up at Ningens Blog A MUST READ!

I have previously raised questions about Steven Jones' failure to disclose data from a peer-reviewed engineering journal that contradicts a major part of his "planes" thesis, here:

http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/01/my-concerns-about-professor-jon...

One of Jones' three main arguments in support of his "planes" thesis, which he presents as a rebuttal of the "no planes theory," is the deceleration argument, as follows:

It is a strong argument put forward that because no US defense aircraft were launched to intercept the ‘hijacked planes’ it is clear evidence that a ‘stand down’ order was given, there follows a myriad of information which seem to confirm this.
But wait …..
Is there another explanation?
What possible reason could there be that no air defense intercepted any of the ‘hijacked planes’?
Simple. There were no hijacked planes.

Airplanes are extremely delicate

Watch These Videos of Real Crashes:

Video 1, Video 2, Video 3, Video 4

Now Watch These 9/11 Videos: